Does it matter that the House Select Committee, with only two cherry-picked Republican members, is not lawfully constituted?
In addition, with the clear evidence (eye-popping divergences from the exit polls in the formal results of the Massachusetts Democratic primary, giving Biden a whisker-thin victory), is it so far-fetched to imagine …
Does it matter that the House Select Committee, with only two cherry-picked Republican members, is not lawfully constituted?
In addition, with the clear evidence (eye-popping divergences from the exit polls in the formal results of the Massachusetts Democratic primary, giving Biden a whisker-thin victory), is it so far-fetched to imagine that Biden and company also stole the election from Trump?
It matters that the kinds of Americans that truly believe Trump won are not exercising rational thought. It also matters that those who pretend to believe that Trump won are willing to accept victory through cheating. All of these people should be living in Russia or North Korea to have a true taste of what they are supporting, because this is how Putin and other autocrats come to power, and this would have immediately made us no longer a democracy. That this action set us up to be partners with other autocrats like Putin, Kim Jong-un and Xi Jinping, Bashar al Assad is quite frightening. What is most concerning is that people who support Trump seem to have read or traveled little, or have little imagination, or imagine that they will always be the benefactors of an autocracy. There is only one benefactor of an autocracy and that is the person at the top. Everyone else's position is precarious at best. Even they do not benefit, because they destroy the country they run.
Read your link to the Free Press. Fact: Exit Poll respondents 1,394; votes counted 1,327,374. The exit poll respondents equal .0010501 of the votes counted. Might you include this is a rather small number? Also, exit polls, by their nature, only account for those present at the polls. Our Covid induced election of 2020 had the highest number and percentage of absentee ballots in history. Mind you, I'm sure demographics played heavily in the Free Press' numbers. Especially for us older folks, who were more than comfortable to vote absentee. Do you have facts supporting a comparative analysis of exit polls, absentee ballots, and demographics of the Massachusetts Democratic Primary of 2020? If not, please do not cherry pick from a very large sundae.
I trust Bernie Sanders, who I do admire in many ways, would not have eventually supported Joe Biden if he, or his staff, thought the Democratic nomination was stolen from him. Might you agree?
He begrudgingly supported Clinton's nomination after the shenanigans of the Democratic National Committee in 2016, as he understood the danger of Trump. Considering this past history, I believe if there was a sniff of impropriety in the 2020 Democratic Primaries, he and his staff would have raised hell.
Going down this road is an unnecessary and baseless distraction. The real issue is for Trump, and the long list of his co-conspirators, to be brought to justice for their actions clearly noted by Heather.
I am astonished at what you say about exit polls. Exit polls have a phenomenal record for accuracy, and they are a standard tool for double-checking election integrity. Theodore Soares discusses that on his website. Did you even look?
It seems silly to me to validate a covid-time exit poll by pointing to a record of accuracy of exit polls in previous elections when mail-in ballots were no more than a footnote. There were huge discrepancies between the mail-in and in-person tallies; why would you expect exit polls of the latter voters to match the overall results, unless you have already bought in to the notion, without evidence, that the entire election apparatus is (or should I say was already) crooked.
I am not talking about the general election (with mail-in ballots in six toss-up states). I am talking about the Democratic primaries, where Theodore Soares documented a consistent shift away from Bernie (and Tulsi) in favor of Biden.
Oh, and what are you on about re TULSI, ffs? Apart from the other problems with that, de Macedo Soares's chart shows her share of the vote nearly *doubling* from poll to vote count . . .
I stand corrected: that early primary was indeed before covid started affecting many people's behavior. So the mail-in vs. in-person votes do not explain the discrepancy. Although I agree that the corporatists and donor-ass-lickers of the DNC did their level best to "steal" the nomination from BSanders both in '16 and in '20, and was a Bernie primary voter on each occasion (and unlike in '16 where I harbored some enthusiasm for my second choice Obama, Warren would have been my second choice in '20 if we had had the opportunity to make one), I can't accept the disparity between exit poll results and final computerized tally as proof that the fix was in on the latter. You say exit polling has been very accurate in the past; really? I seem to remember some that were way off (I'm old enough to remember the "Bradley effect" and subsequent recurrences). Can you show me exit polls' good record in 9-candidate primaries in which the top 3 were closely bunched? Does it not matter that many voters supported, and reported to exit pollsters that they'd voted for, Sanders or Warren, rather than admit that when in the booth they'd chickened out and acceded to the "mainstream" argument that only "moderate" Dupont Joe could win?
According to Theodore Soares, in the 2016 Massachusetts Republican primary, with a big field, the exit polls fit the declared results within 1 percent.
Beyond that is the pattern of discrepancies in Biden's favor throughout the 2020 primaries, with one single exception: Tennessee.
I can predict the roll of an honest die, and one time in six I'll be *precisely right* -- and *half* the time I'll be off by no more than one. In any event, the Soares reference is not very convincing; his web site recounts as his "Qualifications" that he worked with someone crunching election numbers and thereafter took some "classes in higher mathematics" and *poof!* he was in business as an election data analyst. Those and his peculiar analysis of the Mass Dem Primary in 2020 are not enough to convince me that the Dem establishment's methods of "stealing" the nomination for The Present Guy included cooking the vote totals via computer. And as I remember it, it was not a slim margin of victory in Mass (whose electoral votes were going to go to the D whoever he turned out to be), but the resounding votes of the Black women of SoCar (who were no way going to deliver any electoral votes), that were made to require that good ol' work-across-the-aisle Joe must be the nominee.
Playing wackamole with accusations is pretty funny. When someone quashes the last lie you throw out there, and, you are defeated with facts, then, you propose another lie.
Very interesting approach. Spare time today? Not much going on? Unemployed?
Ooooh I didn’t know that could be a job!! Looking for a summer gig (on the right side of course) and it might beat scooping ice cream-how would one apply to bait Fuckher Carlson followers on that thing’s social?
Fuckher Carlson wouldn’t approve well-spoken, nuanced comments explicating comparative fascism. Pick on someone else. Linda spoke well and no one comes here for a chumpchange pocketsize “like” section
No. It matters a damn lot and still really chaps my ass. But that is not the crux of how do we contain Jan 6 participants and keep power in the hands of -if not the people, at least the people who pretend a little harder that it’s for the people not the 1% until we can relax from fascist grabs for authoritarian nation and organize more effectively for true reform.
Ah. There it is. Bernie Sanders has the same fomenting followers as Trump. He has never once explained how he would ¨make¨ the 1 % pay more in taxes. Or actually fund all of the things that Progressives clamor for instantaneously without any seeming knowledge of the slow process to move to a Democratic Socialist country. I voted for President Biden.
John, An exit poll does not a vote count make. When you have evidence of vote recounting that is inconsistent, or some other concrete difference, then you have evidence. Otherwise, this is just supposition and perhaps wishful thinking. What it is not, is evidence that Biden, stole the Democratic nomination. In fact, the reference to two different elections with a discrepancy, one in which Biden was not participating in, would further support the idea that Biden himself has nothing to do with this. So, this is just slander on your part.
Not at all. The pattern of discrepancies in Biden's favor throughout the Democratic primaries will never again be observed if Biden's election reform bill institutionalized mail-in balloting.
Proof takes place within the minds of individuals, applying reason, unless there is "smoking gun" evidence (which is a convenient shortcut). I think that the discrepancies from the exit polls, throughout the Democratic primaries and especially in Massachusetts, constitutes proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
"the House Select Committee, with only two cherry-picked Republican members, is not lawfully constituted?"
The above sentence is a lie. I don't know if you believe the lie or not, but, I do know that does not matter. The above sentence is a lie.
"is it so far-fetched to imagine that Biden and company also stole the election from Trump?"
Yes, it is far fetched, and a lie, that the election was stolen from the loser: Trump.
Just be clear on the facts.
Now, John, you can BELIEVE whatever you want. That is legal and your right, but, I can also correct your beliefs if your belief system has led you to confuse a fact with a belief.
Believing that Donald Trump won because the white man at Fox News/(or your church) told you that lie and you have been trained to believe the white man at the front of your church is perfectly OK with me.
But, writing your beliefs here, if they are lies in reality, well, I can correct those lies, that is my right.
My point is that the committee was supposed to have an equal number if Democrats and Republicans, with the chair (a Democrat) breaking tie votes and with the Republican members chosen by the Republican leadership. Neither of those two requirements happened.
There is no law anywhere that requires a criminal investigation to have equal number of Democrats and Republicans. No law anywhere at all that says that.
So, for example, if the Jan 06 committee found crimes and every member was a member of the Democratic Party, it would still be a crime.
You're mixing apples with oranges. The Senate Republicans blocked an INDEPENDENT inquiry, and now we have a HOUSE committee that is not lawfully constituted, voiding their subpoena power.
Did you, or did you not, say "the committee was supposed to have an equal number if Democrats and Republicans, with the chair (a Democrat) breaking tie votes and with the Republican members chosen by the Republican leadership. Neither of those two requirements happened."?
That is the point of discussion that YOU established in this thread, and I addressed it.
So out of what orifice did you pull your idea of "requirements" for an investigatory committee of a house of Congress to be "lawfully constituted"? The members the Repub leader nominated for the committee had a common characteristic: a demonstrated propensity for grandstanding bloviation at sufficient length to keep any honest business from being done.
That would seem to be a delightfully Machiavellian argument for throwing out the agreement under which the committee was constituted in the first place. I'm reminded of how the United States first got a United Nations resolution to protect civilians, and then went far beyond that mandate to unleash bloody hell on that country.
Two of the Rs' 5 choices for the original version of the committee were rejected because their choice was obviously for the precise purpose of keeping the committee from functioning. The minority then ordered his other 3 not to serve. Only 2 then volunteered to participate in doing what history demands. That's not a "Machiavellian argument" in the sense in which you seem to mean it; it's an entirely appropriate reason in view of the importance -- not to the D party, but to our system of gov't -- of getting the job done (and it's *still* questionable that they'll get it done before the clock runs out). And you still haven't mounted any defense of your not-"lawfully constituted" characterization.
Indeed, Daria and indeed quite unproductive. On this column we name our sources if we quote others and if we want to prove something we provide the evidence and not just hypebole and opinion.
Glad to hear it Stuart Attewell, and now you can be the very first one around here to engage with the evidence that Biden stole the Democratic nomination from Bernie Sanders. I'm waiting...
I am astonished at what you say. Exit polls have a phenomenal record for accuracy, and they are a standard tool for double-checking election integrity. Theodore Soares discusses that on his website. Did you even look?
I am astonished at what you say. Exit polls have a phenomenal record for accuracy, and they are a standard tool for double-checking election integrity. Theodore Soares discusses that on his website. Did you even look?
Replying to Pam Peterson and Melinda Quivik, I am astonished at what you say. Exit polls have a phenomenal record for accuracy, and they are a standard tool for double-checking election integrity. Theodore Soares discusses that on his website. Did you even look?
Judith Swink, Theodore Soares documented a statistically all-but-impossible consistent set of discrepancies throughout the Democratic primaries away from Bernie in Biden's favor. The most egregious was in Massachusetts.
So let's get this straight, your whole schtick is really all about Bernie not getting the Democratic nomination? No one is going to play the Bernie game with you.
No, it's about what appears to be the endemic corruption of our election process through computerized vote fraud. If that is indeed the case, then we don't live in a democracy, but rather a techno-fascist plutocracy.
Proof. You need to provide proof from reliable sources. It is easy to make claims of election fraud, vote tampering etc., but you have failed to provide compelling facts to prove your claim. I agree that technology has been used to corrupt countless facets of our lives but there is very little substantiated evidence to support your claim of endemic computerized voter fraud. You are riding on the coat tails of conspiracy theorists whose allegations have been debunked and thrown out of court (by many a Republican appointed judge, I might add). And what is the point? If you really are interested in free and fair elections advocate for them by relying on facts. Don't stir the pot with more hysteria manufactured by right wing agitators to keep the paranoid, right wing base engaged.
Daria, I have provided EVIDENCE: a pattern of discrepancies from the exit polls both in Massachusetts and throughout the Democratic primaries. Proof comes from reason applied to evidence.
I already gave it. In the wake of the 2000 "Bush v. Gore" debacle, there was an on-line community devoted to rooting out and exposing computerized vote fraud (does anybody remember Black Box Voting?). They joked morbidly about computers crashing and coming back around midnight, with inexplicable number changes in the election returns.
And then I saw it happen right before my eyes, on election day for the 2008 North Carolina primary. For a couple days there was a buzz about if Hillary was going to challenge the results, which would mean that she had to talk to the Attorney General (Roy Cooper), who appears to have been part of the fix.
There are tactics and there is philosophy/ethics and “Oi don’t know much about art, but Oi know what Oi loike,” (python fans of the world UNITE) so shuttin down your highfalutin rabbit hole and gonna go clean a toilet now, cause a man’s work is fro sun to sun but a woman’s work is never done.
But Pres Trump’s effective use of name-calling rhetoric helped him demonize opponents and if nothing else control the discourse through earned media. If you’re too good to call names or get in a bar brawl, good on you but how about stepping back and letting those of us with no fancy manners fight the good fight with you?
Then perhaps Professor HCR can weigh in on the amazing discrepancies in the Massachusetts primary (identical 4% shaved from BOTH Bernie's and Elizabeth Warren's totals in Biden's favor), togethercwith the consistent discrepancies throughout the Democratic primaries in Biden's favor.
Thank you for your posts. At first I hated seeing your posts with all the lies and aggressive put
downs. But in fact I’m grateful for your bullshit posts. They are a stark reminder of what we are up against in trying to save our country. If you hadn’t posted I would have coasted through the many letters from people I respect and agree with. People who sincerely want the truth and want our country to be diverse and fair to all. You have reminded me that there are many of you who have bought into an aggressively distorted and false reality. In the middle ages the inquisition tortured people until they either agreed with lies or died. Do you have a rack in your basement? I wouldn’t be surprised. Please keep posting here so we never forget what we are up against.
Thank you Ned L. This is the first time I dipped into the Posts and am I glad I did.....for the most part fascinating reading. Thank you all (or almost all).
I did a deep dive on John Schmeeckle (mainly because I thought he was a bot) and learned that one of his ancestors (William Coon) allegedly had a somewhat similar approach and desire to be a "new type of communicator":
"...So William began to practice talking to people who were inclined to disagree with him. William wanted to be able to explain in a way that would encourage people to think about ending the war as the priority. And this is what William focused on. William wanted to be a new type of communicator, who was respectful toward those who strongly opposed his opinion. But William wanted to be able to persuade people also. And this meant William had to be able to point out the weaknesses in the arguments of the people who disagreed with him. William wanted to know that he would be respected at the end of an argument, and so he made a point of ensuring that his opponents knew that he would avoid using heated language.
This had the effect of making people willing to discuss their views, but it was extremely difficult to convince people without moving their emotions. William wanted to do this without explicitly rejecting the view of his opponents. William wanted to be able to have a honest discussion with those who didn’t want to think about his point of view. William wanted to be a true patriot, for the correct reasons, and not a person who simply identified with one side and therefore hated the other side..."
My great-great-grandfather tells the story of how the Union soldiers were corrupted by their experience on the famous march to the sea, and his wife tells about hiding her family's South Carolina origin :
I could be wrong but I think these "ancestral memories" are actually written by John Schmeeckle based upon his present day "communication" with his dead ancestors. See this:
Communicating with ancestors
+4
votes
1.5k views
Over a year ago, I was told that it is possible to communicate with deceased ancestors, but I was cautioned to always have a respectful attitude when talking to them. I decided to try it and see what happened, and it worked…
On the “Day of the Dead” (the day after Halloween), I thought of the names of all of my grandparents and their parents and grandparents, and they started talking to me. Remorse came up immediately for some of them. I learned that women often had ongoing connections with living daughters and granddaughters, but most of the men had been isolated since their deaths. I was told – several times – that after death there is a kind of separation of what we call the soul into two parts. Each ancestor has a part that remains accessible to descendants, and a part that goes elsewhere. Memories are incomplete.
Ancestors want to see the well-being of their descendants. Ancestors also want to be able to talk to their own parents and children. Ancestors hope that living descendants will work their way back from their parents or grandparents to more distant ancestors, one generation at a time. This allows children and parents among the ancestors to talk to each other, when a living descendant is open to ancestral communication.
Ancestors want to avoid hearing from descendants who just want to ask questions about the family tree. Ancestors may not communicate with descendants with only this in mind. For this reason, it is once again a good idea to work your back from one generation to the next. Ancestors believe that descendants who are respectful will be pleased to talk about their own lives. Ancestors want their descendants to live will, and ancestors are concerned when descendants are struggling. Ancestors have the ability to observe the lives of living descendants, but they often do not do so. Ancestors may be inclined to be more observant after a descendant contacts an ancestor, especially if that ancestor had not had any communication with descendants before.
Some ancestors, especially those who were devoutly religious, may avoid communicating with descendants who don’t share their moral values.
Husbands and wives who didn’t get along with each other may be able to begin to communicate about issues that they never talked about before death.
One final point – I have heard some disturbing stories from ancestors, and proper respect demands that the ancestor be asked for permission before sharing such stories. The following free space page contains the stories of four ancestors, starting with a Swiss soldier in Germany who never made it home. The words are entirely those of the ancestors: I typed as their words appeared in my mind.
The ancestors gave their permission to publicly share all that appears here: Ancestral Memories: The Schmückle Family in Einod
sources profiles tobey delano peckham
asked Jan 7, 2018 in The Tree House by Anonymous Schmeeckle G2G6 Mach 9 (95.7k points)
My theory is that John Schmeeckle desires to be a "new form of communicator" and is honing his skills here. He wants to have what he thinks is an "honest discussion" with those "who do not want to think about his point of view". He wants to be a "true patriot" for the "right reasons".
It seemed to me that your description of your ancestor’s struggle to be a respected, “new communicator” perhaps reflected your own experience and at least for me, added insight as to where you were coming from and why you had chosen this forum as an arena for “engagement”.
I really thought you were a bot and hope you figure out how to make your public information private.
That is purely because you will find 99% of the people here to be very informed, critical thinkers. You have a right to your opinion. You stated it. You will just tire yourself out trying to make people drink koolaid here, Sir. We are most focused on saving our democracy from the corporatocracy, autocrats, white supremacists, neo-nazis and some just plain wackos who spew lies and brainwashing propaganda. I would counter that if Biden stole the election, I would prefer it to be him than the cult of the lying party of sedition.
EDIT: I mis-spoke. The committee was originally set up, on a party-line vote, to include seven Democrats and six Republicans (including one to be chosen by Pelosi).
John - you seem to be going at this in a calm manner - and that is commendable. I think - surely you know that doubting the results of the 2020 election in this forum is going to generate a firestorm. I would ask calmly then - where is the requirement for the bi-partisan makeup of the select committee established? It doesn't appear you have given us that.
And do remember that *you* made a distinction between the independent committee that Republicans filibustered and the select committee that Republicans got for, in my opinion, overtly acting in bad faith.
Characterizing the investigations of the Jan 6 commission, in the face of the extensive research HCR has brought to the table in copious amounts, as mere "hardball politics" is also a specious action of yours.
Not at all. You're persistent in trying to undermine the legitimacy and authority of a committee devoted to rooting out actions that, if not treasonous in themselves, are rubbing shoulders with treason, with no useful alternative, such that my word usage is the subtext you're deliberately trying to create, and one must wonder what you personally are getting out of this, especially as you accept without question the premise that Biden "robbed" the primary, which is in itself specious, as nigh every argument you've presented is predicated on that premise.
I think it is already clear that I don't subscribe to your point of view, and I hope it is equally clear that I am not a Trump supporter.
I think it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that Biden and company stole the Democratic nomination from Bernie Sanders. I also think it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that our country shares responsibility for the most far-reaching genocide in history, perpetrated by the International Monetary Fund (based in Washington, DC).
I think it is crystal clear that most people don't want to talk about this, and your apparent unwillingness to engage with the content of Davison Budhoo's 100-page resignation letter from the IMF would suggest habitual see-no-evil hypocrisy on your part, which in turn would strongly suggest your unwillingness to look at the evidence of all-to-common vote fraud in the USA.
The Select Committee could well be an effort by treasonous vote-fraudsters to rub out resistance to their techno-fascist coup d'etat. If the Jan. 6 riot was actually an attempt to STOP a slow-moving coup, that would appear to absolve them from your charge of treason.
As always, your willingness to read and consider Davison Budhoo's resignation letter (which has been blacked out of the U.S. news media) is a starting point for evaluating your capacity for honest discussion.
I'll repeat my earlier quotes from Budhoo's letter:
"To me resignation is a priceless liberation, for with it I have taken the first big step to that place where I may hope to wash my hands of what in my mind’s eye is the blood of millions of poor and starving peoples. Mr. Camdessus, the blood is so much, you know, it runs in rivers."
"The charges that I make are not light charges - they are charges that touch at the very heart of western society and western morality and post-war inter-governmental institutionalism that have degenerated into fake and sham under the pretext of establishing and maintaining international economic order and global efficiency."
"Will the world be content merely to brand our institution as among the most insidious enemies of humankind? Will our fellowmen condemn us thus and let the matter rest? Or will the heirs of those whom we have dismembered in our own peculiar Holocaust clamor for another Nuremberg?
"I don’t mind telling you that this matter has haunted me; it has haunted me particularly over the past five years. It has haunted me because I know that if I am tried I will be found guilty, very guilty, without extenuating circumstance."
"In guilt and self-realization of my own worthlessness as a human being, what I would like to do most of all is to so propel myself that I can get the man-in-the-street of North and South and East and West and First and Second and Third and Fourth and All Other Worlds to take an interest in what is happening to his single planet, his single habitat, because our institution was allowed to evolve in a particular way in late twentieth century international society, and allowed to become the supra-national authority that controls the day-to-day lives of hundreds of millions of people everywhere."
"We get away with our works of Dracula hiding behind the mask of Superior Technocracy and a Greater Wisdom striving for “financial balance” and “structural adjustment” in the Third World."
"And so it goes on and on and on. And nothing changes in the developing world except more death and destitution for the people in the slums, and more power for the Fund. And with the passing of every meeting our staff becomes even more reinvigorated; they wield a sharper and more bloodied tool; an even more terrifying Executor’s Axe stand poised for service everywhere in the South. And the children scream, Sir; my God, how they scream!"
(Budhoo is referring here to the incessant screaming of starving infants. When they stop screaming, you know that death is near.)
Why did the committee not end up as you day was required? What took place when this alternative to an independent commission was voted upon along party lines? Not arguing, but do you know why the intended composition didn't happen?
I'm not sure. I think it was the decision of the committee Chairman, backed up by the party leadership. Your question is one that I would like a clear answer to.
I'd encourage you to look into the extensive news coverage on this topic. Coverage included NYT, WaPo, Washington Weekly, for many days as the process and potential members were suggested, blocked, and McCarthy stomped off into the sunset condeming Ms Cheney and Mr Adam K to purgatory. Many posting here have addressed this as well, particularly in sharing following HCR various LFAAs (see the archives). You may come to understand what is taking place and help you adjust your quicker look-sees.
There is some value in categorizing logical fallacies, factual errors, errors of proportion, errors of premises, and the like. When presented with them, it's useful to point them out, not so much to gain a "win" over a stubborn (or intransigent) debater, but to clarify exactly what is going on.
John makes a number of apparently unrelated statements, prefaced with leading questions. "Does it matter that X?" "Is it far-fetched that Y, given that Z?"
There is nothing unlawful about the Select Committee: if there were, the subpoenas would have all be struck down as invalid, exactly as if I were to issue a subpoena. The subpoenas have been heard by the courts, and upheld, and individuals defying them have been referred to the DOJ for criminal contempt of Congress. The Select Committee is certainly lawful.
Was it "lawfully constituted?" Well, since the Committee itself is lawful, then I would say it was "lawfully constituted" in any sense that matters. Did it involve hard-ball politics? Yes. Do things that matter involve hard-ball politics? Almost always. Am I able or willing to do sportscasting on Congressional hard-ball politics? No.
So in this case, X is actually a falsehood. It is like asking the question, "Does it matter that the moon is made of green cheese?" I'm not an academic logician, so I don't know if this is categorized as some kind of fallacy, or if it is just nonsense phrased as a question, like "Does it matter that the borogoves are mimsy?"
The simple answer is, No. The nonsense following the question does not matter at all.
Subtle, John.
The second statement is equally subtle.
Let's remove the histrionics and simplify for structure:
"Is it so far-fetched to imagine that election B was fraudulent, given that election A was fraudulent?"
There are a lot of places for this to go wrong. WAS election A fraudulent? Can election A and B be compared at all? If they can be compared, does it make sense to do so?
Here's an extreme example: "Is it so far-fetched to imagine that a serial killer escaped from federal detention, given that my third-grade son forgot to bring his lunch to school?"
At least in John's case, we are comparing two elections. But was election A (the primary) fraudulent? "Eye-popping divergences" is pure histrionics. Statistical measures are always subject to heavy tails and outliers, particularly when the samples are contaminated by any kind of systemic filtering, such as (for instance) COVID shifting the proportions of (measured) live votes to (unmeasured) mail-in votes. There were apparently no challenges to the legitimacy of the count, and of course, Bernie conceded to Clinton. So there is no basis for saying election A was fraudulent.
So this is really a repeat of the same misdirection in the first question.
"Is it so far-fetched to believe that election B was fraudulent, given that election A was run by space-aliens from zeta-reticuli?"
Joseph, that was such a pleasure to read. Thanks for deconstructing the illogic of his rhetoric. Masterfully done. However, you are wrong about one thing: It matters greatly that the borogoves are mimsy. If they were not mimsy but instead, say, flimsy, the jabberwock would have survived the vorpal sword and Alice would never have made it to Wonderland.
Your lengthy post includes the far-fetched supposition that judges are always impartial and non-partisan. I'll suggest that Bush v. Gore gives the lie to that.
John, many here have indicated they would prefer to dismiss you as a troll. You remind me in some ways of my son, when he gets on his debater's high horse and can't seem to get down off it, so I'm inclined to be a little more gentle.
Most of us are not here to glory in our debate skills, nor to push -- beyond what is obviously necessary -- partisan political views. We ARE very partisan, but only because one of the Parties (from which "partisan" derives) has become an overt and ongoing threat to the US. Donald John Trump tried to execute a coup, to become "president for life," with the aid and assistance of the Republican Party as a whole. That party has given up on any political platform or policy, or even any pretense of such. It is a party with one clear goal: power. Power for the sake of power. They have aligned with autocracy, behind an unspeakably vulgar, pompous, sociopathic narcissist.
They have no plan for the country. They have a plan for themselves. Some are merely vulgar opportunists. Some are, like Ginni Thomas, religious fanatics caught up in End Times mythology. But they have no plan for the country.
Bernie, AOC, Biden, Hillary, and Liz Cheney ARE ALL ON THE SAME SIDE in this. As are all of the regulars who read this site, including myself.
And every last one of us has had at least one dark night in the last five years where we lay awake thinking that we would live to see the end of the United States.
I am very aware of the context. I watched with horror as Attorneys General from groups of opposing states lined up as the Supreme Court refused to hear the Texas lawsuit against Pennsylvania. We are already far along the slippery slope toward the wrecking of the Union among the States.
I don't think you give me credit for the work I've done to understand the situation. I have a strong reservation about your assessment: I think it is clear that, in their own minds, Trump and company were trying to pull off a counter-coup against what they perceived as Biden's techno-fascist stealing of the election. The evidence of Biden's theft of the Democratic nomination tends to render plausible their conclusion. If they honestly thought that the election was stolen, then other elements of your discussion come into question.
"Is it so far-fetched to imagine that a serial killer escaped from federal detention, given that my third-grade son forgot to bring his lunch to school?"
Absolutely sterling writing Joseph. Great analysis.
It is lawfully constituted. Your article references a democratic primary and we've seen exit polls be very far off the mark.
The republicans had a chance to nominate people to the committee but nominated only people they knew would be disruptive and not seek truth. Pelosi was right to reject them.
And once she rejected those two who would only have been disruptive, who continue to claim the election was stolen, House Minority Leader McCarthy refused to appoint ANY Republican House members to the committee. Therefore, Speaker Pelosi proceeded in a legal manner to establish the Select Committee by appointing mostly Democratic members and then accepted the two Republican members who offered to join the Committee. There is no illegality to this process.
I find myself wondering if McCarthy & McConnell now regret not having put forward some less controversial Republican House members for the Select Committee which, in the form originally proposed, would have had to close down on December 31, 2021.
"The House select committee created to investigate the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol is scheduled to have its first hearing Tuesday despite House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., pulling Republicans from participating in the committee.
McCarthy’s actions came after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., rejected Republican Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio and Jim Banks of Indiana, two of his five appointees to the committee, from sitting on the panel, citing that they would undermine the integrity of the committee.
Although Pelosi said she’d accept McCarthy’s other three appointees – Reps. Rodney Davis of Illinois, Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota and Troy Nehls of Texas – McCarthy went forward and yanked his picks and threatened to create Republicans' own investigation.
“Unless Speaker Pelosi reverses course and seats all five Republican nominees, Republicans will not be party to their sham process and will instead pursue our own investigation of the facts,” McCarthy said."
No. Knock it off. Even if in jest, you're further undercutting your own flimsy claims.
Gullible reporters went to Italy for the show, and he gave them one. A few lines were upgraded (work begun before Mussolini took power) that served British tourists and the corporatists. The normal trains were as late as usual.
And if you were the researcher you claim to be, you'd know that Soares has been completely debunked more than once.
No, it does not matter. And Yes, it is far-fetched.
You are picking over Senate procedural rules and dubious statistical correlations in the face of a failed government coup. It's analogous to looking at a murder scene, with dead bodies and a guy holding the still-smoking machine gun, and saying, "But he's dressed so neatly! Surely he can't be guilty?"
I respectfully disagree. If Biden did indeed steal the Democratic nomination from Bernie, that renders plausible the supposition that he did the same against Trump. If that was indeed the case, then the Jan. 6 riot takes on the impression of a failed counter-coup where the rule of law and the machinery of democracy have broken down.
Of course there is a long history of vote fraud in this country. I was not a fan of Al Gore, but the Florida mess in the 2000 election had a fetid stench; perhaps you recall Greg Palast's reporting.
I remember the 2008 North Carolina Democratic primary, which was a must-win for Hillary Clinton to stay in the race against Barack Obama. I stayed up to watch the results come in, and at first they were neck-and-neck, but suddenly **gasp** the election computers crashed!! I smelled a rat and stayed up late, and -- sure enough -- when the computers came back online toward midnight (as we were dutifully informed), Hillary's total remained flat, but there was a big jump in Obama's total, putting the election out of reach. (And Roy Cooper, the North Carolina Attorney General, was elevated to Governor, and Charlotte, North Carolina was awarded the next Democratic Party convention. Good job, fellas!)
By the way, I voted for Hillary in 2008 (and for Obama in the general election), but, ever since Hillary became the blood-soaked Butcher of Libya, NEVER AGAIN will I vote for her. Tulsi Gabbard hit the nail on the head when she lambasted Hillary as the "corrupt queen of the war-mongers." (Yes, I supported Tulsi in the last election campaign.)
John, being outraged about the Clinton's is sort of part of the past don't you think?
I was not a big fan of how the Clinton's played either. Keeping one's pants on in the workplace would seem like a reasonable habit. BUT, having seen the modern Republican Party and Trump play?
Well, the Clinton's look like choir boys and girls by comparison.
The problem is, now there is a new hurdle to access his website, at least from my android phone using the Google Chrome browser. I now have to sign up for "advanced security," which means a report to google.com whenever I look at Theodore Soares's website. Is this an example of techno-fascism in action?
If you believe them, get help and counseling. Your belief system has taken over your rational self and will harm you in multiple ways. When you look around, you don't see reality.
Living in belief space means you are not able to manage reality because you cannot see it.
Steve Wagener, thank you for bringing up that bogus "fact check," which explains absolutely nothing. It's like a minister giving an approve answer to the True Believers, so they can persuade themselves to ignore that disturbing question posed by a skeptic.
That fact check slickly conflate two separate sources, giving the false impression that a mis-speak by a guy named Pease was actually the fault of Theodore Soares. The actual numbers that Soares used, with discussion, are here:
When I clicked your link, my browser Antivirus protection said "Warning: Potential Security Risk Ahead
Firefox detected a potential security threat and did not continue to tdmsresearch.com. If you visit this site, attackers could try to steal information like your passwords, emails, or credit card details.
What can you do about it?
The issue is most likely with the website, and there is nothing you can do to resolve it. You can notify the website’s administrator about the problem."
Does it matter that the House Select Committee, with only two cherry-picked Republican members, is not lawfully constituted?
In addition, with the clear evidence (eye-popping divergences from the exit polls in the formal results of the Massachusetts Democratic primary, giving Biden a whisker-thin victory), is it so far-fetched to imagine that Biden and company also stole the election from Trump?
https://freepress.org/article/massachusetts-2020-democratic-primary
It matters that the kinds of Americans that truly believe Trump won are not exercising rational thought. It also matters that those who pretend to believe that Trump won are willing to accept victory through cheating. All of these people should be living in Russia or North Korea to have a true taste of what they are supporting, because this is how Putin and other autocrats come to power, and this would have immediately made us no longer a democracy. That this action set us up to be partners with other autocrats like Putin, Kim Jong-un and Xi Jinping, Bashar al Assad is quite frightening. What is most concerning is that people who support Trump seem to have read or traveled little, or have little imagination, or imagine that they will always be the benefactors of an autocracy. There is only one benefactor of an autocracy and that is the person at the top. Everyone else's position is precarious at best. Even they do not benefit, because they destroy the country they run.
So you prefer to ignore the evidence that Biden stole the Democratic nomination from Bernie Sanders?
Read your link to the Free Press. Fact: Exit Poll respondents 1,394; votes counted 1,327,374. The exit poll respondents equal .0010501 of the votes counted. Might you include this is a rather small number? Also, exit polls, by their nature, only account for those present at the polls. Our Covid induced election of 2020 had the highest number and percentage of absentee ballots in history. Mind you, I'm sure demographics played heavily in the Free Press' numbers. Especially for us older folks, who were more than comfortable to vote absentee. Do you have facts supporting a comparative analysis of exit polls, absentee ballots, and demographics of the Massachusetts Democratic Primary of 2020? If not, please do not cherry pick from a very large sundae.
I trust Bernie Sanders, who I do admire in many ways, would not have eventually supported Joe Biden if he, or his staff, thought the Democratic nomination was stolen from him. Might you agree?
He begrudgingly supported Clinton's nomination after the shenanigans of the Democratic National Committee in 2016, as he understood the danger of Trump. Considering this past history, I believe if there was a sniff of impropriety in the 2020 Democratic Primaries, he and his staff would have raised hell.
Going down this road is an unnecessary and baseless distraction. The real issue is for Trump, and the long list of his co-conspirators, to be brought to justice for their actions clearly noted by Heather.
I
Brad, thank you for your logical, well-documented response. What a breath of fresh air!
I am astonished at what you say about exit polls. Exit polls have a phenomenal record for accuracy, and they are a standard tool for double-checking election integrity. Theodore Soares discusses that on his website. Did you even look?
It seems silly to me to validate a covid-time exit poll by pointing to a record of accuracy of exit polls in previous elections when mail-in ballots were no more than a footnote. There were huge discrepancies between the mail-in and in-person tallies; why would you expect exit polls of the latter voters to match the overall results, unless you have already bought in to the notion, without evidence, that the entire election apparatus is (or should I say was already) crooked.
I am not talking about the general election (with mail-in ballots in six toss-up states). I am talking about the Democratic primaries, where Theodore Soares documented a consistent shift away from Bernie (and Tulsi) in favor of Biden.
Oh, and what are you on about re TULSI, ffs? Apart from the other problems with that, de Macedo Soares's chart shows her share of the vote nearly *doubling* from poll to vote count . . .
I stand corrected: that early primary was indeed before covid started affecting many people's behavior. So the mail-in vs. in-person votes do not explain the discrepancy. Although I agree that the corporatists and donor-ass-lickers of the DNC did their level best to "steal" the nomination from BSanders both in '16 and in '20, and was a Bernie primary voter on each occasion (and unlike in '16 where I harbored some enthusiasm for my second choice Obama, Warren would have been my second choice in '20 if we had had the opportunity to make one), I can't accept the disparity between exit poll results and final computerized tally as proof that the fix was in on the latter. You say exit polling has been very accurate in the past; really? I seem to remember some that were way off (I'm old enough to remember the "Bradley effect" and subsequent recurrences). Can you show me exit polls' good record in 9-candidate primaries in which the top 3 were closely bunched? Does it not matter that many voters supported, and reported to exit pollsters that they'd voted for, Sanders or Warren, rather than admit that when in the booth they'd chickened out and acceded to the "mainstream" argument that only "moderate" Dupont Joe could win?
According to Theodore Soares, in the 2016 Massachusetts Republican primary, with a big field, the exit polls fit the declared results within 1 percent.
Beyond that is the pattern of discrepancies in Biden's favor throughout the 2020 primaries, with one single exception: Tennessee.
I can predict the roll of an honest die, and one time in six I'll be *precisely right* -- and *half* the time I'll be off by no more than one. In any event, the Soares reference is not very convincing; his web site recounts as his "Qualifications" that he worked with someone crunching election numbers and thereafter took some "classes in higher mathematics" and *poof!* he was in business as an election data analyst. Those and his peculiar analysis of the Mass Dem Primary in 2020 are not enough to convince me that the Dem establishment's methods of "stealing" the nomination for The Present Guy included cooking the vote totals via computer. And as I remember it, it was not a slim margin of victory in Mass (whose electoral votes were going to go to the D whoever he turned out to be), but the resounding votes of the Black women of SoCar (who were no way going to deliver any electoral votes), that were made to require that good ol' work-across-the-aisle Joe must be the nominee.
Nice spin.
John,
Playing wackamole with accusations is pretty funny. When someone quashes the last lie you throw out there, and, you are defeated with facts, then, you propose another lie.
Very interesting approach. Spare time today? Not much going on? Unemployed?
Or you are a paid disrupter?
Door #3 for 50000, Monte
Ooooh I didn’t know that could be a job!! Looking for a summer gig (on the right side of course) and it might beat scooping ice cream-how would one apply to bait Fuckher Carlson followers on that thing’s social?
Maybe the latter
Why do you choose to ignore the evidence that Biden stole the Democratic nomination from Bernie Sanders? Instead, you mock and sneer
:-(
Look at all the attention you get. Tucker approved
Fuckher Carlson wouldn’t approve well-spoken, nuanced comments explicating comparative fascism. Pick on someone else. Linda spoke well and no one comes here for a chumpchange pocketsize “like” section
I cannot ignore that which I do not have.
And which does not exist.
No. It matters a damn lot and still really chaps my ass. But that is not the crux of how do we contain Jan 6 participants and keep power in the hands of -if not the people, at least the people who pretend a little harder that it’s for the people not the 1% until we can relax from fascist grabs for authoritarian nation and organize more effectively for true reform.
Ah. There it is. Bernie Sanders has the same fomenting followers as Trump. He has never once explained how he would ¨make¨ the 1 % pay more in taxes. Or actually fund all of the things that Progressives clamor for instantaneously without any seeming knowledge of the slow process to move to a Democratic Socialist country. I voted for President Biden.
The weak points in Bernie's policy platform have nothing to do with the evidence that Biden stole the Democratic nomination from him.
Please present the evidence.
I already did, with links: Theodore Soares documented a consistent shift away from Bernie (and Tulsi) in favor of Biden.
John, An exit poll does not a vote count make. When you have evidence of vote recounting that is inconsistent, or some other concrete difference, then you have evidence. Otherwise, this is just supposition and perhaps wishful thinking. What it is not, is evidence that Biden, stole the Democratic nomination. In fact, the reference to two different elections with a discrepancy, one in which Biden was not participating in, would further support the idea that Biden himself has nothing to do with this. So, this is just slander on your part.
Not at all. The pattern of discrepancies in Biden's favor throughout the Democratic primaries will never again be observed if Biden's election reform bill institutionalized mail-in balloting.
I stand by what I say. Without proof, this is slander.
Proof takes place within the minds of individuals, applying reason, unless there is "smoking gun" evidence (which is a convenient shortcut). I think that the discrepancies from the exit polls, throughout the Democratic primaries and especially in Massachusetts, constitutes proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Trump would be re-elected if Bernie was the Democratic nominee. The cross-over votes wouldn’t go to Bernie—those voters just wouldn’t have voted.
My take on it
that was the DNC in 2016 and in 2020
What does that have to do with this evidence from Eastman?
"the House Select Committee, with only two cherry-picked Republican members, is not lawfully constituted?"
The above sentence is a lie. I don't know if you believe the lie or not, but, I do know that does not matter. The above sentence is a lie.
"is it so far-fetched to imagine that Biden and company also stole the election from Trump?"
Yes, it is far fetched, and a lie, that the election was stolen from the loser: Trump.
Just be clear on the facts.
Now, John, you can BELIEVE whatever you want. That is legal and your right, but, I can also correct your beliefs if your belief system has led you to confuse a fact with a belief.
Believing that Donald Trump won because the white man at Fox News/(or your church) told you that lie and you have been trained to believe the white man at the front of your church is perfectly OK with me.
But, writing your beliefs here, if they are lies in reality, well, I can correct those lies, that is my right.
Arguing with such people gives them undeserved credibility.
Not really arguing. Just clearing up reality in case someone is reading and gets the wrong impression.
❤️
For sure.
You're welcome to prove me wrong, if you can. The membership of the House Selecg Committee is here:
https://january6th.house.gov/about/membership
So what’s your point?
My point is that the committee was supposed to have an equal number if Democrats and Republicans, with the chair (a Democrat) breaking tie votes and with the Republican members chosen by the Republican leadership. Neither of those two requirements happened.
There is no law anywhere that requires a criminal investigation to have equal number of Democrats and Republicans. No law anywhere at all that says that.
So, for example, if the Jan 06 committee found crimes and every member was a member of the Democratic Party, it would still be a crime.
Republicans filibustered the bill with the "equal number" requirement. It would be specious to blame Democrats, let alone Biden, for that.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/28/politics/january-6-commission-vote-senate/index.html
You're mixing apples with oranges. The Senate Republicans blocked an INDEPENDENT inquiry, and now we have a HOUSE committee that is not lawfully constituted, voiding their subpoena power.
"You're mixing apples with oranges."
Did you, or did you not, say "the committee was supposed to have an equal number if Democrats and Republicans, with the chair (a Democrat) breaking tie votes and with the Republican members chosen by the Republican leadership. Neither of those two requirements happened."?
That is the point of discussion that YOU established in this thread, and I addressed it.
Requirements? Hah.
The requirements come from the agreement under which the committee was set up.
So out of what orifice did you pull your idea of "requirements" for an investigatory committee of a house of Congress to be "lawfully constituted"? The members the Repub leader nominated for the committee had a common characteristic: a demonstrated propensity for grandstanding bloviation at sufficient length to keep any honest business from being done.
That would seem to be a delightfully Machiavellian argument for throwing out the agreement under which the committee was constituted in the first place. I'm reminded of how the United States first got a United Nations resolution to protect civilians, and then went far beyond that mandate to unleash bloody hell on that country.
Two of the Rs' 5 choices for the original version of the committee were rejected because their choice was obviously for the precise purpose of keeping the committee from functioning. The minority then ordered his other 3 not to serve. Only 2 then volunteered to participate in doing what history demands. That's not a "Machiavellian argument" in the sense in which you seem to mean it; it's an entirely appropriate reason in view of the importance -- not to the D party, but to our system of gov't -- of getting the job done (and it's *still* questionable that they'll get it done before the clock runs out). And you still haven't mounted any defense of your not-"lawfully constituted" characterization.
Lordy, the cult lives and breathes bull Schitt.
I see that the cyber-goon squad has arrived, with trademark sneer while refusing to engage with the evidence
:-(
Name calling is a very ugly trait.
Indeed, Daria and indeed quite unproductive. On this column we name our sources if we quote others and if we want to prove something we provide the evidence and not just hypebole and opinion.
We don’t win the next election in the rarefied chambers of Professor HCR’s comments sections, we win it in the streets.
Glad to hear it Stuart Attewell, and now you can be the very first one around here to engage with the evidence that Biden stole the Democratic nomination from Bernie Sanders. I'm waiting...
If you have evidence, show it.
“He said it, therefore it is”
Apologies to both Descartes and Kant, I always forget which
Um, I did provide two links, which you pretend to ignore.
I already showed my evidence, with a link to the exit poll data
I looked at the article you posted. Comparing exit poll data with votes is specious. Proves nothing.
I am astonished at what you say. Exit polls have a phenomenal record for accuracy, and they are a standard tool for double-checking election integrity. Theodore Soares discusses that on his website. Did you even look?
Exit poll data? We know exit polls are very often wrong.
I am astonished at what you say. Exit polls have a phenomenal record for accuracy, and they are a standard tool for double-checking election integrity. Theodore Soares discusses that on his website. Did you even look?
Replying to Pam Peterson and Melinda Quivik, I am astonished at what you say. Exit polls have a phenomenal record for accuracy, and they are a standard tool for double-checking election integrity. Theodore Soares discusses that on his website. Did you even look?
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/election-exit-polls-accuracy-common-complaint/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/exit-polls-can-be-misleading-especially-this-year/
https://www.vox.com/21552679/exit-poll-accuracy
https://www.forbes.com/2008/11/01/exit-polls-election-oped-cx_kb_1103bowman.html?sh=70e63bf85e45
Judith Swink, Theodore Soares documented a statistically all-but-impossible consistent set of discrepancies throughout the Democratic primaries away from Bernie in Biden's favor. The most egregious was in Massachusetts.
So let's get this straight, your whole schtick is really all about Bernie not getting the Democratic nomination? No one is going to play the Bernie game with you.
No, it's about what appears to be the endemic corruption of our election process through computerized vote fraud. If that is indeed the case, then we don't live in a democracy, but rather a techno-fascist plutocracy.
Proof. You need to provide proof from reliable sources. It is easy to make claims of election fraud, vote tampering etc., but you have failed to provide compelling facts to prove your claim. I agree that technology has been used to corrupt countless facets of our lives but there is very little substantiated evidence to support your claim of endemic computerized voter fraud. You are riding on the coat tails of conspiracy theorists whose allegations have been debunked and thrown out of court (by many a Republican appointed judge, I might add). And what is the point? If you really are interested in free and fair elections advocate for them by relying on facts. Don't stir the pot with more hysteria manufactured by right wing agitators to keep the paranoid, right wing base engaged.
Daria, I have provided EVIDENCE: a pattern of discrepancies from the exit polls both in Massachusetts and throughout the Democratic primaries. Proof comes from reason applied to evidence.
Edit polls are not at all an accurate indicator of election fraud. Period.
https://www.wired.com/story/the-pre-election-polls-were-wrong-the-exit-polls-are-worse/
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000177-6046-de2d-a57f-7a6e8c950000
https://www.newsweek.com/how-they-will-suggest-election-was-stolen-517965
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/20/citizens-for-donald-trump-exit-poll-roger-stone-rigged-election-claim
https://heavy.com/news/2016/11/2016-exit-polls-did-hillaty-clinton-win-presidential-election-voter-fraud-donald-trump-lose-rigged/
He is loving the troll game, seems to me
Yeah. He is.
So where is your evidence the the Carolinas primaries were falsified?
I already gave it. In the wake of the 2000 "Bush v. Gore" debacle, there was an on-line community devoted to rooting out and exposing computerized vote fraud (does anybody remember Black Box Voting?). They joked morbidly about computers crashing and coming back around midnight, with inexplicable number changes in the election returns.
And then I saw it happen right before my eyes, on election day for the 2008 North Carolina primary. For a couple days there was a buzz about if Hillary was going to challenge the results, which would mean that she had to talk to the Attorney General (Roy Cooper), who appears to have been part of the fix.
Anecdotal evidence is not evidence
And this has what relevance to your theories about Dem primaries in 2019? Not much i fear.
When name-calling is all one has, that's what one uses.
Actually, lotsa arrows in the quiver wins that kind of fight
To what end though? Are you about to argue that winning is more important than the principles for which one is fighting?
There are tactics and there is philosophy/ethics and “Oi don’t know much about art, but Oi know what Oi loike,” (python fans of the world UNITE) so shuttin down your highfalutin rabbit hole and gonna go clean a toilet now, cause a man’s work is fro sun to sun but a woman’s work is never done.
But Pres Trump’s effective use of name-calling rhetoric helped him demonize opponents and if nothing else control the discourse through earned media. If you’re too good to call names or get in a bar brawl, good on you but how about stepping back and letting those of us with no fancy manners fight the good fight with you?
So is finger pointing
time to stop feeding the troll
Yep, David. Troll is at the bridge collecting toll coins from subscribers.
let's just move on as we were... ignore them.
Is that a sneer, or just the dirty S@ncz from kissing fascist @ss 😂😂😂😂😂😂
Um, I presented evidence, both in my initial post and in three quick follow-up posts, and you don't seem to want to talk about it.
Um, um, pay attention to meeeeee. Really?!? Bugger right off with that, I’m not teaching this thing, Professor HCR is
Then perhaps Professor HCR can weigh in on the amazing discrepancies in the Massachusetts primary (identical 4% shaved from BOTH Bernie's and Elizabeth Warren's totals in Biden's favor), togethercwith the consistent discrepancies throughout the Democratic primaries in Biden's favor.
Thank you for your posts. At first I hated seeing your posts with all the lies and aggressive put
downs. But in fact I’m grateful for your bullshit posts. They are a stark reminder of what we are up against in trying to save our country. If you hadn’t posted I would have coasted through the many letters from people I respect and agree with. People who sincerely want the truth and want our country to be diverse and fair to all. You have reminded me that there are many of you who have bought into an aggressively distorted and false reality. In the middle ages the inquisition tortured people until they either agreed with lies or died. Do you have a rack in your basement? I wouldn’t be surprised. Please keep posting here so we never forget what we are up against.
Thank you Ned L. This is the first time I dipped into the Posts and am I glad I did.....for the most part fascinating reading. Thank you all (or almost all).
Your arguing with him gives him undeserved credibility.
Not really addressed to him but to all of us so we don't forget what's out there. His outrageous posts help to remind us.
I’ll skip him. The MSM following Rupert is stress enough for me
I did a deep dive on John Schmeeckle (mainly because I thought he was a bot) and learned that one of his ancestors (William Coon) allegedly had a somewhat similar approach and desire to be a "new type of communicator":
"...So William began to practice talking to people who were inclined to disagree with him. William wanted to be able to explain in a way that would encourage people to think about ending the war as the priority. And this is what William focused on. William wanted to be a new type of communicator, who was respectful toward those who strongly opposed his opinion. But William wanted to be able to persuade people also. And this meant William had to be able to point out the weaknesses in the arguments of the people who disagreed with him. William wanted to know that he would be respected at the end of an argument, and so he made a point of ensuring that his opponents knew that he would avoid using heated language.
This had the effect of making people willing to discuss their views, but it was extremely difficult to convince people without moving their emotions. William wanted to do this without explicitly rejecting the view of his opponents. William wanted to be able to have a honest discussion with those who didn’t want to think about his point of view. William wanted to be a true patriot, for the correct reasons, and not a person who simply identified with one side and therefore hated the other side..."
This came from https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Ancestral_Memories:_William_Coons_and_Julia_Wallacefbclid=IwAR2hwYj9MNHO8zXVx9CIaD9ZNkiDERB1EVbpzjHeoZqtJe04fabhaoKTgw4 which had been referenced on John's FB:
John Schmeeckle
My great-great-grandfather tells the story of how the Union soldiers were corrupted by their experience on the famous march to the sea, and his wife tells about hiding her family's South Carolina origin :
https://www.wikitree.com/.../Space:Ancestral_Memories...
I could be wrong but I think these "ancestral memories" are actually written by John Schmeeckle based upon his present day "communication" with his dead ancestors. See this:
Communicating with ancestors
+4
votes
1.5k views
Over a year ago, I was told that it is possible to communicate with deceased ancestors, but I was cautioned to always have a respectful attitude when talking to them. I decided to try it and see what happened, and it worked…
On the “Day of the Dead” (the day after Halloween), I thought of the names of all of my grandparents and their parents and grandparents, and they started talking to me. Remorse came up immediately for some of them. I learned that women often had ongoing connections with living daughters and granddaughters, but most of the men had been isolated since their deaths. I was told – several times – that after death there is a kind of separation of what we call the soul into two parts. Each ancestor has a part that remains accessible to descendants, and a part that goes elsewhere. Memories are incomplete.
Ancestors want to see the well-being of their descendants. Ancestors also want to be able to talk to their own parents and children. Ancestors hope that living descendants will work their way back from their parents or grandparents to more distant ancestors, one generation at a time. This allows children and parents among the ancestors to talk to each other, when a living descendant is open to ancestral communication.
Ancestors want to avoid hearing from descendants who just want to ask questions about the family tree. Ancestors may not communicate with descendants with only this in mind. For this reason, it is once again a good idea to work your back from one generation to the next. Ancestors believe that descendants who are respectful will be pleased to talk about their own lives. Ancestors want their descendants to live will, and ancestors are concerned when descendants are struggling. Ancestors have the ability to observe the lives of living descendants, but they often do not do so. Ancestors may be inclined to be more observant after a descendant contacts an ancestor, especially if that ancestor had not had any communication with descendants before.
Some ancestors, especially those who were devoutly religious, may avoid communicating with descendants who don’t share their moral values.
Husbands and wives who didn’t get along with each other may be able to begin to communicate about issues that they never talked about before death.
One final point – I have heard some disturbing stories from ancestors, and proper respect demands that the ancestor be asked for permission before sharing such stories. The following free space page contains the stories of four ancestors, starting with a Swiss soldier in Germany who never made it home. The words are entirely those of the ancestors: I typed as their words appeared in my mind.
The ancestors gave their permission to publicly share all that appears here: Ancestral Memories: The Schmückle Family in Einod
sources profiles tobey delano peckham
asked Jan 7, 2018 in The Tree House by Anonymous Schmeeckle G2G6 Mach 9 (95.7k points)
retagged Jan 9, 2018 by Anonymous Schmeeckle https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/535187/communicating-with-ancestors
My theory is that John Schmeeckle desires to be a "new form of communicator" and is honing his skills here. He wants to have what he thinks is an "honest discussion" with those "who do not want to think about his point of view". He wants to be a "true patriot" for the "right reasons".
Haha, but so not funny
I will suggest that the best starting point for my presentation of communicating with ancestors is this public discussion:
https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/535187/communicating-with-ancestors
However, I will suggest that Terry Preshaw's bringing up of off-topic personal information is disturbing.
It seemed to me that your description of your ancestor’s struggle to be a respected, “new communicator” perhaps reflected your own experience and at least for me, added insight as to where you were coming from and why you had chosen this forum as an arena for “engagement”.
I really thought you were a bot and hope you figure out how to make your public information private.
Unfortunately, you do not have anything to say.
Are you trying to get your 50 dollars worth? Or was it your money to begin with?
The folks here aren’t FB
😂
The people who accept that you will be in this conversation are not being given good input.
Dave Dalton, I presented evidence, both in my initial post and in three quick follow-up posts, and you don't seem to want to talk about it.
That is purely because you will find 99% of the people here to be very informed, critical thinkers. You have a right to your opinion. You stated it. You will just tire yourself out trying to make people drink koolaid here, Sir. We are most focused on saving our democracy from the corporatocracy, autocrats, white supremacists, neo-nazis and some just plain wackos who spew lies and brainwashing propaganda. I would counter that if Biden stole the election, I would prefer it to be him than the cult of the lying party of sedition.
Bear in mind that he's all over the internet with this kind of stuff. Democracy permits it.
RBot?
And our citizenry is Rupert Murdoch conditioned for bull Schitt
Jack Lippman, "all over the internet"?? You lie boldly.
Not boldly, just fighting fire with fire. You chose the weapons.
We need to stop feeding the troll
So you admit that you lied. I didn't lie.
I presented evidence, both in my initial post and in three quick follow-up posts, and you don't seem to want to talk about it.
The membership of the committee, which is supposed to have an equal number of Republicans (with the Democrat Chair breaking ties) is here:
https://january6th.house.gov/about/membership
EDIT: I mis-spoke. The committee was originally set up, on a party-line vote, to include seven Democrats and six Republicans (including one to be chosen by Pelosi).
John - you seem to be going at this in a calm manner - and that is commendable. I think - surely you know that doubting the results of the 2020 election in this forum is going to generate a firestorm. I would ask calmly then - where is the requirement for the bi-partisan makeup of the select committee established? It doesn't appear you have given us that.
That was the rule agreed to in the House at the time the committee was set up.
Evidence, please.
And do remember that *you* made a distinction between the independent committee that Republicans filibustered and the select committee that Republicans got for, in my opinion, overtly acting in bad faith.
You are of course entitled to your opinion. Hardball politics on both sides, in this time of Constitutional cancer, is good for no one.
Characterizing the investigations of the Jan 6 commission, in the face of the extensive research HCR has brought to the table in copious amounts, as mere "hardball politics" is also a specious action of yours.
Your use of the word "mere" is a specious action of yours.
The stakes are very high in this ongoing coup-vs.-coup duel, and the machinery of democracy has become battered and twisted.
Not at all. You're persistent in trying to undermine the legitimacy and authority of a committee devoted to rooting out actions that, if not treasonous in themselves, are rubbing shoulders with treason, with no useful alternative, such that my word usage is the subtext you're deliberately trying to create, and one must wonder what you personally are getting out of this, especially as you accept without question the premise that Biden "robbed" the primary, which is in itself specious, as nigh every argument you've presented is predicated on that premise.
I think it is already clear that I don't subscribe to your point of view, and I hope it is equally clear that I am not a Trump supporter.
I think it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that Biden and company stole the Democratic nomination from Bernie Sanders. I also think it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that our country shares responsibility for the most far-reaching genocide in history, perpetrated by the International Monetary Fund (based in Washington, DC).
I think it is crystal clear that most people don't want to talk about this, and your apparent unwillingness to engage with the content of Davison Budhoo's 100-page resignation letter from the IMF would suggest habitual see-no-evil hypocrisy on your part, which in turn would strongly suggest your unwillingness to look at the evidence of all-to-common vote fraud in the USA.
The Select Committee could well be an effort by treasonous vote-fraudsters to rub out resistance to their techno-fascist coup d'etat. If the Jan. 6 riot was actually an attempt to STOP a slow-moving coup, that would appear to absolve them from your charge of treason.
As always, your willingness to read and consider Davison Budhoo's resignation letter (which has been blacked out of the U.S. news media) is a starting point for evaluating your capacity for honest discussion.
I'll repeat my earlier quotes from Budhoo's letter:
"To me resignation is a priceless liberation, for with it I have taken the first big step to that place where I may hope to wash my hands of what in my mind’s eye is the blood of millions of poor and starving peoples. Mr. Camdessus, the blood is so much, you know, it runs in rivers."
"The charges that I make are not light charges - they are charges that touch at the very heart of western society and western morality and post-war inter-governmental institutionalism that have degenerated into fake and sham under the pretext of establishing and maintaining international economic order and global efficiency."
"Will the world be content merely to brand our institution as among the most insidious enemies of humankind? Will our fellowmen condemn us thus and let the matter rest? Or will the heirs of those whom we have dismembered in our own peculiar Holocaust clamor for another Nuremberg?
"I don’t mind telling you that this matter has haunted me; it has haunted me particularly over the past five years. It has haunted me because I know that if I am tried I will be found guilty, very guilty, without extenuating circumstance."
"In guilt and self-realization of my own worthlessness as a human being, what I would like to do most of all is to so propel myself that I can get the man-in-the-street of North and South and East and West and First and Second and Third and Fourth and All Other Worlds to take an interest in what is happening to his single planet, his single habitat, because our institution was allowed to evolve in a particular way in late twentieth century international society, and allowed to become the supra-national authority that controls the day-to-day lives of hundreds of millions of people everywhere."
"We get away with our works of Dracula hiding behind the mask of Superior Technocracy and a Greater Wisdom striving for “financial balance” and “structural adjustment” in the Third World."
"And so it goes on and on and on. And nothing changes in the developing world except more death and destitution for the people in the slums, and more power for the Fund. And with the passing of every meeting our staff becomes even more reinvigorated; they wield a sharper and more bloodied tool; an even more terrifying Executor’s Axe stand poised for service everywhere in the South. And the children scream, Sir; my God, how they scream!"
(Budhoo is referring here to the incessant screaming of starving infants. When they stop screaming, you know that death is near.)
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oJzvpfFzIKu76oE1CkzZlarRiVpYIggFMFzSt6OgHx0/mobilebasic"
Why did the committee not end up as you day was required? What took place when this alternative to an independent commission was voted upon along party lines? Not arguing, but do you know why the intended composition didn't happen?
I'm not sure. I think it was the decision of the committee Chairman, backed up by the party leadership. Your question is one that I would like a clear answer to.
I'd encourage you to look into the extensive news coverage on this topic. Coverage included NYT, WaPo, Washington Weekly, for many days as the process and potential members were suggested, blocked, and McCarthy stomped off into the sunset condeming Ms Cheney and Mr Adam K to purgatory. Many posting here have addressed this as well, particularly in sharing following HCR various LFAAs (see the archives). You may come to understand what is taking place and help you adjust your quicker look-sees.
I think it's reasonable to question whether the rump (no pun intended) committee lacks legitimate subpoena power.
Not really if you haven't done the basics of discovery. You seem to have questions but are unwillingness to research what is taking place. Good by.
There is some value in categorizing logical fallacies, factual errors, errors of proportion, errors of premises, and the like. When presented with them, it's useful to point them out, not so much to gain a "win" over a stubborn (or intransigent) debater, but to clarify exactly what is going on.
John makes a number of apparently unrelated statements, prefaced with leading questions. "Does it matter that X?" "Is it far-fetched that Y, given that Z?"
There is nothing unlawful about the Select Committee: if there were, the subpoenas would have all be struck down as invalid, exactly as if I were to issue a subpoena. The subpoenas have been heard by the courts, and upheld, and individuals defying them have been referred to the DOJ for criminal contempt of Congress. The Select Committee is certainly lawful.
Was it "lawfully constituted?" Well, since the Committee itself is lawful, then I would say it was "lawfully constituted" in any sense that matters. Did it involve hard-ball politics? Yes. Do things that matter involve hard-ball politics? Almost always. Am I able or willing to do sportscasting on Congressional hard-ball politics? No.
So in this case, X is actually a falsehood. It is like asking the question, "Does it matter that the moon is made of green cheese?" I'm not an academic logician, so I don't know if this is categorized as some kind of fallacy, or if it is just nonsense phrased as a question, like "Does it matter that the borogoves are mimsy?"
The simple answer is, No. The nonsense following the question does not matter at all.
Subtle, John.
The second statement is equally subtle.
Let's remove the histrionics and simplify for structure:
"Is it so far-fetched to imagine that election B was fraudulent, given that election A was fraudulent?"
There are a lot of places for this to go wrong. WAS election A fraudulent? Can election A and B be compared at all? If they can be compared, does it make sense to do so?
Here's an extreme example: "Is it so far-fetched to imagine that a serial killer escaped from federal detention, given that my third-grade son forgot to bring his lunch to school?"
At least in John's case, we are comparing two elections. But was election A (the primary) fraudulent? "Eye-popping divergences" is pure histrionics. Statistical measures are always subject to heavy tails and outliers, particularly when the samples are contaminated by any kind of systemic filtering, such as (for instance) COVID shifting the proportions of (measured) live votes to (unmeasured) mail-in votes. There were apparently no challenges to the legitimacy of the count, and of course, Bernie conceded to Clinton. So there is no basis for saying election A was fraudulent.
So this is really a repeat of the same misdirection in the first question.
"Is it so far-fetched to believe that election B was fraudulent, given that election A was run by space-aliens from zeta-reticuli?"
The simple answer is Yes: it's far-fetched.
Joseph, that was such a pleasure to read. Thanks for deconstructing the illogic of his rhetoric. Masterfully done. However, you are wrong about one thing: It matters greatly that the borogoves are mimsy. If they were not mimsy but instead, say, flimsy, the jabberwock would have survived the vorpal sword and Alice would never have made it to Wonderland.
I stand corrected. :-)
Your lengthy post includes the far-fetched supposition that judges are always impartial and non-partisan. I'll suggest that Bush v. Gore gives the lie to that.
John, many here have indicated they would prefer to dismiss you as a troll. You remind me in some ways of my son, when he gets on his debater's high horse and can't seem to get down off it, so I'm inclined to be a little more gentle.
Most of us are not here to glory in our debate skills, nor to push -- beyond what is obviously necessary -- partisan political views. We ARE very partisan, but only because one of the Parties (from which "partisan" derives) has become an overt and ongoing threat to the US. Donald John Trump tried to execute a coup, to become "president for life," with the aid and assistance of the Republican Party as a whole. That party has given up on any political platform or policy, or even any pretense of such. It is a party with one clear goal: power. Power for the sake of power. They have aligned with autocracy, behind an unspeakably vulgar, pompous, sociopathic narcissist.
They have no plan for the country. They have a plan for themselves. Some are merely vulgar opportunists. Some are, like Ginni Thomas, religious fanatics caught up in End Times mythology. But they have no plan for the country.
Bernie, AOC, Biden, Hillary, and Liz Cheney ARE ALL ON THE SAME SIDE in this. As are all of the regulars who read this site, including myself.
And every last one of us has had at least one dark night in the last five years where we lay awake thinking that we would live to see the end of the United States.
So don't come here with your hypotheticals.
Wake up to the context. Please.
My last word on this subject.
I am very aware of the context. I watched with horror as Attorneys General from groups of opposing states lined up as the Supreme Court refused to hear the Texas lawsuit against Pennsylvania. We are already far along the slippery slope toward the wrecking of the Union among the States.
I don't think you give me credit for the work I've done to understand the situation. I have a strong reservation about your assessment: I think it is clear that, in their own minds, Trump and company were trying to pull off a counter-coup against what they perceived as Biden's techno-fascist stealing of the election. The evidence of Biden's theft of the Democratic nomination tends to render plausible their conclusion. If they honestly thought that the election was stolen, then other elements of your discussion come into question.
Heart
Touché!
"Is it so far-fetched to imagine that a serial killer escaped from federal detention, given that my third-grade son forgot to bring his lunch to school?"
Absolutely sterling writing Joseph. Great analysis.
It is lawfully constituted. Your article references a democratic primary and we've seen exit polls be very far off the mark.
The republicans had a chance to nominate people to the committee but nominated only people they knew would be disruptive and not seek truth. Pelosi was right to reject them.
And once she rejected those two who would only have been disruptive, who continue to claim the election was stolen, House Minority Leader McCarthy refused to appoint ANY Republican House members to the committee. Therefore, Speaker Pelosi proceeded in a legal manner to establish the Select Committee by appointing mostly Democratic members and then accepted the two Republican members who offered to join the Committee. There is no illegality to this process.
I find myself wondering if McCarthy & McConnell now regret not having put forward some less controversial Republican House members for the Select Committee which, in the form originally proposed, would have had to close down on December 31, 2021.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/07/26/january-6-select-committee-who-its-9-members/5375766001/
"The House select committee created to investigate the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol is scheduled to have its first hearing Tuesday despite House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., pulling Republicans from participating in the committee.
McCarthy’s actions came after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., rejected Republican Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio and Jim Banks of Indiana, two of his five appointees to the committee, from sitting on the panel, citing that they would undermine the integrity of the committee.
Although Pelosi said she’d accept McCarthy’s other three appointees – Reps. Rodney Davis of Illinois, Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota and Troy Nehls of Texas – McCarthy went forward and yanked his picks and threatened to create Republicans' own investigation.
“Unless Speaker Pelosi reverses course and seats all five Republican nominees, Republicans will not be party to their sham process and will instead pursue our own investigation of the facts,” McCarthy said."
Great and detailed historical post on the formation of the committee. Thanks.
And Mussolini made the trains run on time.
No. Knock it off. Even if in jest, you're further undercutting your own flimsy claims.
Gullible reporters went to Italy for the show, and he gave them one. A few lines were upgraded (work begun before Mussolini took power) that served British tourists and the corporatists. The normal trains were as late as usual.
And if you were the researcher you claim to be, you'd know that Soares has been completely debunked more than once.
Saying so doesn't make it true.
Precisely.
No, it does not matter. And Yes, it is far-fetched.
You are picking over Senate procedural rules and dubious statistical correlations in the face of a failed government coup. It's analogous to looking at a murder scene, with dead bodies and a guy holding the still-smoking machine gun, and saying, "But he's dressed so neatly! Surely he can't be guilty?"
I respectfully disagree. If Biden did indeed steal the Democratic nomination from Bernie, that renders plausible the supposition that he did the same against Trump. If that was indeed the case, then the Jan. 6 riot takes on the impression of a failed counter-coup where the rule of law and the machinery of democracy have broken down.
Clueless
Propagandists abound
Yes it is
The membership of the committee, which is supposed to have an equal number of Republicans (with the Democratic Chair breaking ties) is here:
https://january6th.house.gov/about/membership
Of course there is a long history of vote fraud in this country. I was not a fan of Al Gore, but the Florida mess in the 2000 election had a fetid stench; perhaps you recall Greg Palast's reporting.
And speaking of stinky Florida elections, has anyone around here read Votescam? The first two chapters are online at https://books.google.com/books/about/Votescam.html?id=ZxpZCgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&gboemv=1&gbmsitb=1#v=onepage&q&f=false
?
I remember the 2008 North Carolina Democratic primary, which was a must-win for Hillary Clinton to stay in the race against Barack Obama. I stayed up to watch the results come in, and at first they were neck-and-neck, but suddenly **gasp** the election computers crashed!! I smelled a rat and stayed up late, and -- sure enough -- when the computers came back online toward midnight (as we were dutifully informed), Hillary's total remained flat, but there was a big jump in Obama's total, putting the election out of reach. (And Roy Cooper, the North Carolina Attorney General, was elevated to Governor, and Charlotte, North Carolina was awarded the next Democratic Party convention. Good job, fellas!)
By the way, I voted for Hillary in 2008 (and for Obama in the general election), but, ever since Hillary became the blood-soaked Butcher of Libya, NEVER AGAIN will I vote for her. Tulsi Gabbard hit the nail on the head when she lambasted Hillary as the "corrupt queen of the war-mongers." (Yes, I supported Tulsi in the last election campaign.)
John, being outraged about the Clinton's is sort of part of the past don't you think?
I was not a big fan of how the Clinton's played either. Keeping one's pants on in the workplace would seem like a reasonable habit. BUT, having seen the modern Republican Party and Trump play?
Well, the Clinton's look like choir boys and girls by comparison.
So you prefer not to engage with the evidence that Biden stole the Democratic nomination from Bernie Sanders?
Wackamole does not work with me John. Go find a Republican with a short attention span .... it will work with them.
Wackamole???
Theodore Soares, author of that article on the Massachusetts Democratic primary discrepancies, put his data and much more (showing a pattern of discrepancies throughout the 2020 Democratic primaries) on his own website, at https://tdmsresearch.com/2020/03/04/massachusetts-2020-democratic-party-primary/
The problem is, now there is a new hurdle to access his website, at least from my android phone using the Google Chrome browser. I now have to sign up for "advanced security," which means a report to google.com whenever I look at Theodore Soares's website. Is this an example of techno-fascism in action?
John,
These are all lies.
If you believe them, get help and counseling. Your belief system has taken over your rational self and will harm you in multiple ways. When you look around, you don't see reality.
Living in belief space means you are not able to manage reality because you cannot see it.
Um, I presented evidence, both in my initial post and in three quick follow-up posts, and you don't seem to want to talk about it.
Mr Schmeeckle, I do suggest this. -saw- https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/no-huge-red-flag-that-fraud-occurred-in-mass-primary/
Steve Wagener, thank you for bringing up that bogus "fact check," which explains absolutely nothing. It's like a minister giving an approve answer to the True Believers, so they can persuade themselves to ignore that disturbing question posed by a skeptic.
Whaaa? I read it; it seems to explain a whole lot. you are starting to remind me of the Trump deplorables, where no amount of data will convince them.
That fact check slickly conflate two separate sources, giving the false impression that a mis-speak by a guy named Pease was actually the fault of Theodore Soares. The actual numbers that Soares used, with discussion, are here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200305204359/http://tdmsresearch.com/2020/03/04/massachusetts-2020-democratic-party-primary/
Precisely my thought(in response to James Wheaton's comment).
💩
:-(
How is it that the stench is now attached to you. Rupert??
Um, I presented evidence, both in my initial post and in three quick follow-up posts, and you don't seem to want to talk about it.
Belief space is hard to find your way out of John. Perhaps you never will.
But, reality is more fun, you meet more real people, and you live a real life.
However, some folks do live their entire lives in belief space, and, sometimes, it is a lower stress existence.
For example: You don't have to come to grips that Trump lost the election because 7 million more Americans felt that he was a loser than a winner.
Recognizing that reality must be very painful for you because it would require your belief system to dissolve.
Then what would you do? Reality just might be way too bright for you.
But, this is the wrong board for you. Try one of the QAnon boards where everyone is living in belief space.
Thank you Mike
When I clicked your link, my browser Antivirus protection said "Warning: Potential Security Risk Ahead
Firefox detected a potential security threat and did not continue to tdmsresearch.com. If you visit this site, attackers could try to steal information like your passwords, emails, or credit card details.
What can you do about it?
The issue is most likely with the website, and there is nothing you can do to resolve it. You can notify the website’s administrator about the problem."